Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (12 page)

Gaveston and Isabella apparently travelled together and
their households mingled. Isabella may have been secretly relieved at the favourite’s execution but there is no evidence of mutual antipathy, nor a shred of proof that Edward II regarded Isabella as playing any part in Gaveston’s downfall. Indeed, until 1322, the relationship between the King and his young Queen appears to have been harmonious, with no hint of acrimony or confrontation, either privately or in public. Isabella was treated with every respect. Like other queens before her, she had a sumptuous household and a host of retainers; she was a powerful landowner with estates throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom. She received gifts and was honoured in every way. In turn, Isabella produced four healthy children for her husband; she participated in the King’s negotiations with his barons, and helped to maintain fairly harmonious relationships with France. True, there was a clash between Isabella and the de Spencers over certain rents due to her: she opposed the favourite’s nominees in the Somerton case and played a public role in begging for the de Spencers’ exile in 1321. Even so, this may well have been an empty diplomatic gesture, which allowed the King to save face and concede to his baronial opponents.

Of course, there may have been personal reasons why the relationship between Edward and Isabella weakened and frayed. Yet the violence of its final collapse is truly breathtaking, especially in view of the major role Isabella played in the King’s military preparations against the barons during the winter of 1321–2. Documentary evidence does exist, which hints at certain causes for such a disastrous marital collapse, in the form of letters between Edward and Isabella during the Queen’s self-imposed exile in France as well as the formal charges levelled against de Spencer
after his downfall. Three principal accusations emerged from these: de Spencer’s seizure of Isabella’s estates, the Tynemouth incident and de Spencer’s ‘intrusion’ into her marriage. The first two must be regarded as symptoms rather than causes: the ‘intrusion’ may lie at the root of the matter. Isabella’s public statement, once she had decided to break with her husband and set up an alternative government in exile, is very clear. She took the young Prince of Wales into custody, publicly dressed in widow’s weeds and loudly proclaimed the reason for her actions: ‘I feel that marriage is a joining together of man and woman, maintaining the undivided habit of life. Someone has come between my husband and myself, trying to break this bond. I protest that I will not return until this intruder has been removed but, discarding my marriage garment, I shall assume the robes of widowhood and mourning until I am avenged of this Pharisee.’
⁷²

The important sentence here is ‘Someone has come between my husband and myself trying to break this bond.’ Of course, that someone was de Spencer, and the ‘intrusion’ could refer to a relationship between de Spencer and the King which Isabella found repulsive and unacceptable. Nevertheless, would this account for the intense rancour between the Queen and the royal favourite? It could be argued that Isabella’s liaison with Mortimer was the real cause and that the Queen was simply making ‘bricks out of straw’, using Edward’s relationship with de Spencer as an excuse and pretext for treason, conspiracy and adultery.

Certain letters sent by Edward to his estranged wife and the French court shed more light on the matter. The first is dated 1 September 1325.

To the Queen. The King has frequently offered her, both before and after the homage, to come to him with all speed, laying aside all excuses: but, before the homage, she was excused by reason of the advancement of the affairs, and she has now informed the King, by the Bishop of Winchester, with her letters of credence, that she will not return now for danger and doubt of Hugh de Spencer. The King marvels at this to the extent of his power, especially as she always behaved amiably to him, and he to her, in the King’s presence, and particularly at her departure by her behaviour, and after her departure, by the very special letters sent to him, which he has shown to the King. The King knows for truth, and she knows, that Hugh has always procured her all the honour with the King that he could: and no evil or villainy was done to her after her marriage by any abetment and procurement.
⁷³

The second letter, to the King of France on the same date, develops this theme a little further.

To the King of France. The King has received and understood his letters, delivered by the Bishop of Winchester, and has also understood what the Bishop has told him by word of mouth concerning the matters . . . for peril of her [Isabella’s] life and for the doubt that she has of Hugh de Spencer. It is not fitting that she should doubt Hugh or any other man living in the King’s realm, since, if either Hugh or any other man in the realm wished her evil, and the King knew of it, he would chastise them in such
a manner that others should take example; and such is, and has been, and always will be the King’s will, and he has sufficient power to do this. He wishes the King of France to know that he could never perceive that Hugh, privately or openly, in word or deed, or in countenance, did not behave himself in all points towards the Queen as he ought to have done to his lady: but when the King remembers the amiable countenance and words between the Queen and Hugh that he has seen, and the great friendships that she held to him upon her going beyond sea, and the loving letters that she sent him not long ago, which Hugh has shown to the King, he cannot in any manner believe that the Queen, by herself, can understand such things concerning Hugh. Whoever has, out of hatred, made her so understand, and the King cannot believe it of Hugh in any manner, but he believes that, after himself, Hugh is the man of his realm who wishes her most honour, and this Hugh has always shown, and the King testifies to this in good truth. He prays the King of France not to give credence to those who would make him understand otherwise, but that he will believe the King’s testimony, because the King has, and by reason ought to have, much greater knowledge of this matter than others . . .
⁷⁴

Now, a possible hypothesis for this violent estrangement could be that Edward II was bisexual, that his relationship with Gaveston was intimately physical but that Gaveston proved to be no threat to the Queen at the time, as she was then in her early adolescence. Moreover, by the time she was sixteen, this rival for her husband’s affections had
been brutally removed. It might then be argued that, after Gaveston’s death, Edward’s and Isabella’s relationship became more amicable. The Queen matured: she supported Edward through all his difficulties but objected to his relationship with de Spencer. This new favourite, however, not only enjoyed an intimate relationship with her husband but openly ridiculed and humiliated her and drove her from the King’s presence. However, this does not explain why de Spencer allowed Isabella to travel to France or why Isabella immediately began a very scandalous relationship with the exiled Mortimer.

A review of the evidence indicates a much more complex situation. There is no doubt of the mutual hatred between Isabella and de Spencer. Isabella’s treatment of the fallen favourite is powerful testimony to her feelings whilst, during her exile, de Spencer’s detestation of Isabella was also well publicized. On 15 June 1326, during the height of the crisis, the King and de Spencer travelled to Rochester to meet its venerable, but very astute bishop, Hamo de Hethe. The bishop entertained the King and his favourite, during which de Spencer launched into a savage diatribe against Isabella. The King turned to de Hethe (the conversation was recorded almost word for word) and asked: ‘Isn’t it true that a Queen who once disobeyed her husband was deprived of her Queenship?’ De Hethe retorted: ‘Who ever has told you that has given you very bad advice.’ The bishop then baited de Spencer with allusions from the Old Testament on the fate of evil councillors, but de Spencer would neither relent or concede. The incident illustrates both de Spencer’s deep opposition to the Queen and gives the lie to any hope of compromise or reconciliation.
⁷⁵

By 1325 Isabella was a young woman of twenty-nine. There is no hint of infidelity on her part before this crisis: she was a loyal wife, a good partner and had provided Edward with four healthy children. She began her liaison with Mortimer whilst in France, but this was a result rather than the cause of her alienation from her husband. Something had driven Isabella away from her husband, and I suspect it was more than just a homosexual relationship between the King and his favourite. After their victory in 1322, de Spencer may have reminded Edward how his marriage to Isabella had been forced upon him by Edward I and Philip IV of France. On the other hand, Isabella had fulfilled all expectations: she had produced healthy heirs; she had tolerated her husband’s foibles and done good work for him both in England and abroad; she had played a crucial role in Anglo-French relations and supported Edward against his hated opponent Lancaster. Edward II’s sexuality may have been suspect, but Isabella had accepted the relationship with Gaveston, once Edward accorded her the honour due to her as his wife and Queen. De Spencer, however, was a different matter. Even before the battle of Boroughbridge Isabella’s hostility and resentment towards him were apparent, and the Tynemouth incident only crystallized this. Isabella talks of ‘intrusion’ and Edward’s letters, both to her and the King of France develop this theme further. Edward’s assertion to Isabella is most telling: he does not defend any relationship between himself and de Spencer but refers to that between de Spencer and Isabella: ‘The King knows for truth, and she knows, that Hugh has always procured her all the honour with the King that he could: and no evil or villainy was done to her . . .’

What was this villainy, this evil? Edward’s letter to the
King of France returns to this elusive matter, rebutting the allegation that Isabella is in fear of her life from de Spencer, a probable reference to the Tynemouth incident, but then mentions something else. ‘He [i.e. Edward] wishes the King of France to know that he could never perceive that Hugh, privately or openly, in word or deed, or in countenance, did not behave himself on all points towards the Queen as he ought to have done to his lady.’

It seems that Isabella had levelled serious allegations of a very sensitive nature against de Spencer. If it was simply the seizure of her estates and household, or a clash over political and administrative issues, this would be apparent. Instead the King himself does not wish to spell out what de Spencer allegedly said or did to Isabella which she, in turn, had reported to the French court. In my view, Edward is referring to some sexual misconduct, which Isabella found offensive and disgusting. More importantly, it was something which upset Charles IV of France and his council and accounts for Isabella’s determination not to return, as well as her assuming the dramatic role of a widow. It could also explain her elder son’s adherence to her as well as the sustained support she received from both the papacy and the English hierarchy. I suspect that Edward may have tried to pressure Isabella into accepting an open marriage in which de Spencer wished to play a part. Admittedly, few details exist of this. One Hainault chronicle (Isabella stayed there before she launched her invasion of 1326) claims that Edward II was having an affair with his own niece, de Spencer’s wife Eleanor.
⁷⁶
Did Edward II reciprocate? Wife-swapping is not a phenomenon solely reserved for the twentieth or twenty-first centuries. Did de Spencer
who, after Boroughbridge, was given virtually everything else, demand Isabella as well?

De Spencer was by all accounts a rapacious villain: his harsh treatment of Lancastrian widows is well documented. Did he employ similar tactics towards Isabella and, when she refused, humiliate and disgrace her? It could well explain Isabella’s conduct. She may have pretended to submit to de Spencer’s demands, which would account for him believing she was no longer a threat but a pliant tool who would do whatever he demanded. Isabella dissimulated, pretended to comply and then escaped to France. Once she was safe with her son, she dropped the mask. De Spencer’s sexual harassment of her would also explain Isabella’s conduct with Mortimer. Because of de Spencer’s ‘intrusion’, she may have regarded her marriage as null and void. If her husband insisted on playing the pander and allowing his favourite into her bed, why shouldn’t Isabella choose for herself and, who better than de Spencer’s sworn rival and enemy in Wales, a seasoned soldier, a warrior who now led the exiles plotting against the King and his despised favourite?

This argument would certainly explain Isabella’s hatred for de Spencer, her dissimulation and desire to flee abroad, not to mention her ruthless pursuit and total destruction of her husband and his favourite. It also provides a powerful insight into Isabella’s character. Early in Edward’s reign, Isabella had proved to be an effective negotiator with the French court. During her exile she displayed similar abilities in building up resistance abroad, moving to Hainault and persuading its Count to give her financial and military support for an invasion of England. Isabella comes across as a hard-headed, resolute, very able woman who could
practise deception with the best. Once abroad, she gave full vent to her fury, though hiding it well before she left for France. However, the wise Henry Eastry, Prior of Christchurch, Canterbury, and a close friend of the Queen, sensed the dangers. Isabella visited him shortly before leaving for France and asked him to look after her greyhounds. They had a long conversation and Eastry may have even acted in the role of her confessor. He became very concerned by what he learnt, and shortly afterwards wrote to Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, advising that Isabella should not be allowed to leave the kingdom until her estates and household were restored and full reparation made to her.
⁷⁷
It was Edward’s tragedy that his old acting friend, the vacillating Archbishop, failed to persuade the King to act on this sage advice.